Point of law : A court exercising its inherent jurisdiction must examine if on their face, the averments made in the complaint constitute the ingredients necessary for the offence.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 with the following prayers.

(A) Present Misc. Criminal Application may kindly be allowed quashing F.I.R. registered as Jetpur City Police Station I – C.R. No.79/15 dt. 1- 6-2015 under S.304 of Indian Penal Code and charge sheet No.68 of 2015 Dt. 23-6-2015 being Criminal Case No.1399 of 2015 pending before Ld. Principal Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Jetpur may kindly be quashed.

(B) Pending admission and final disposal of Present Misc. Criminal Application, further proceedings of Criminal Case No.1399 of 2015 pending before Ld. Principal Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Jetpur may kindly be stayed.

(C) Any other and further relief which this Hon’ble Court may kindly be granted in the interest of justice.

2. Brief facts of the present case in nutshell are that the complainant was serving as Junior Engineer in Sub Division of Gujarat Electricity Board at Jetpur and when he was on duty on 11.05.2015, at that time, present applicant- accused No.1, who is the owner of the property, has given electricity connection bearing Customer No.89105/10171/9. That the applicant wanted to renovate the premises by way of constructing the pakka ceiling by replacing the iron sheet and, therefore, he has given the contract for the said work to the contractor namely Kantibhai Nathabhai Makwana. That, when slanting work was carried out by the employee of Kantibhai Makwana, the deceased working as labourer, was passing the iron rod towards standing over the slanting, at that time, the iron rod was touched to overhead electricity line of 11 K.V. passing over the premises owned by the applicant and due to electrocution, the deceased was shifted to the hospital, where he was died. That is how the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by the informant. It is further alleged that the applicant being owner and co-accused being the contractor have not taken any proper care and precaution nor they have informed to the Electricity Board to disconnect the power supply nor seek any prior permission and, therefore, they have committed the alleged offence and hence, impugned FIR being C.R.No.I – 79/2015 came to be registered with Jetpur City Police Station for the offence under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge-sheet came to be submitted in the concerned Court against the accused persons, which was registered as Criminal Case No.1399 of 2015. The applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned FIR and consequential registration of Criminal Case No.1399 of 2015 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jetpur.

3. The Hon’ble Court was pleased to admit this petition vide order dated 22.09.2015 and granted ad-interim relief in terms of para-8(B).

4. Today, when the matter came up for final hearing, this Court heard respective parties through their advocates namely Mr.Bhavesh Trivedi, learned advocate for the applicant, Mr.Premal Joshi, learned advocate assisted by Mr.Nilesh Koyani, learned advocate for the original complainant and Mr.Hardik Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State.

5. Mr.Bhavesh Trivedi, learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged against him. He has also submitted that the incident is purely an accident and there is no negligent on the part of the applicant and, therefore, no offence under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against him. He has further submitted that when the slanting work was going on, one Kishanbhai and Dipakbhai were busy in doing their work and Kishanbhai was supplying the iron rod to Dipakbhai for completing the framing work, at that time the said iron rod was touched with the overhead electricity line of 11 K.V., there was no intention and knowledge to connect the applicant with the alleged offence. He has further submitted that there is no nexus between the death of deceased and any act co